Brendan Eich resigns as Mozilla Corporation CEO

[quote=]"Eich is was both the head of Mozilla, and also saying an entire group of people is subhuman. Calling for his ouster is dramatically different than pitching a fit because I called you out on your idiocy.

Where exactly did he call someone "subhuman"?

This is the nonsense from the left that if you support traditional marriage, you think other people are "subhuman".[/quote]

Yup, that's about the sum of it. If you oppose equal rights for everyone, you are by definition saying some people are lesser than other people. You are, in reality, calling them subhuman.

Eich is was both the head of Mozilla, and also saying an entire group of people is subhuman.

Produce a link to a statement from Eich saying that Gays are subhuman or retract that lie.

He gave materially to an organization that's sole purpose was to remove rights from a specific group of people, i.e. making them, subhuman. The SCOTUS has repeatedly supported the claim that political donations are speech. Ergo, Eich has spoken about his belief that gays are sub-human.

More specifically, he gave to an organization representing the over 7 million voters who, in the majority, voted against gay marriage.

Wow. This debate went south faster than a /b/ thread - and there's plenty of blame for that to go around to both (all) sides. I kinda think Ars should close comments on this article - nothing can save this discussion at this point.

Contrary to some of the beliefs expressed here, it's Eich and his anti-gay camp that have all the power. He was not "bullied" (what a stupid term to throw around when talking about this issue) he was the "bully". Wielding his wealth against those less powerful than himself. That he got his comeuppance is little more than karmic justice, I say.

[quote=]"Eich is was both the head of Mozilla, and also saying an entire group of people is subhuman. Calling for his ouster is dramatically different than pitching a fit because I called you out on your idiocy.

Where exactly did he call someone "subhuman"?

This is the nonsense from the left that if you support traditional marriage, you think other people are "subhuman".

Yup, that's about the sum of it. If you oppose equal rights for everyone, you are by definition saying some people are lesser than other people. You are, in reality, calling them subhuman.[/quote]

While I believe Eich's views on same-sex marriage are utterly wrong, I think this outcome is a disaster.

Mozilla is an activist organization, advocating for an open Internet. Effective advocacy entails building alliances in pursuit of common interests. Many of the successes of digital activism can be attributed to a refusal to let other politics stand in the way of collective action. Libertarians and socialists work hand-in-hand on free and open source software. Their motivations may be as different as their visions of an ideal society, but with respect to the work they share they cooperate with and respect one another.

The lesson here is that all it takes to demolish such coalitions is to reveal the imperfections of the participants. It is an old strategy. The demand for unblemished character guarantees not honest men and women as our leaders, but liars and sociopaths. Every one of us is a perpetrator of wrong beliefs and actions; every time we work together we are vulnerable to this kind of attack.

The amoral suffer no such disadvantage. The man who professess no values but the pursuit of money has no character - but neither does he have a character that offends. Corporations do not tear themselves apart over politics. Profit is their unifying principle. They cannot be sabotaged this way.

This incident reminds me very much of the Clinton impeachment: a genuine difference in values is escalated to the rhetorical equivalent of total war. The sense I have - and you can see it in some comments here - is that it was not Eich's action that was so objectionable: it is Eich himself. What was wanted was not a different action, but a personal transformation of his convictions. His political intervention was illegitimate because it was inconsistent with an objective standard of morality. People want him to apologize not simply for what he did, but for who he is. The difference between Eich and Clinton, however, is that Eich was honest. He could have lied and apologized; he did not and paid the price.

Michel Foucault, a brilliant gay man (and a sadomasochist), described how society punishes deviance. The goal is not simply to force people to act in a certain way, but to turn them into a certain kind of person. Normality is a standard against which all are measured.

I think we need the deviance. Often we learn by interacting with those who are wrong, not only those who are right. I think we need to empathize with our oponents, so that when we discover that we too are mistaken or bigotted we are able to admit our failings and grow. I think we need to let go of our self-righteousness and embrace humility. I think we need to respect those we disagree with, even when they say and do things that do not respect us.

I think this decision hurt Mozilla. I think it gave enemies of an open Internet a template for attacking it. I think it does nothing for same-sex marriage, for the battle of ideas has thankfully already been won. I think it reinforces the worst tendencies in American society, which I believe suffers from an extreme tendency towards conformity. I think stringent criticism of Eich was appropriate. Calling for his job was not.

The people that criticized him not only are not able to respect other people but they are incapable of doing something he said "separating his personal beliefs from those of the business he is running".

I hope gay people are happy, this makes Firefox a Gay browser by nature, something that will BACKSLASH Firefox HUGE time.

Let see how their market share drops in the next months as people don´t want to be associated with a gay browser.

I hope they are happy and lets see how they go down with the browser, just because they where unable to separate one things from another. I´m n not even sure why they took Mozilla as their motto, on one side they said they would stop using Firefox but I never read "one", just one single comment of someone that said he would stop using JavaScript, you know? Firefox, he did not invented it, allot of people did, but JavaScript he did, so they decided to pick just the company he works on, but not the actually one thing he contributed to our world in terms of technology. I guess that was just to much of a comprise....

Now I´m going to follow the same reason they did, I will not only never again touch any Mozilla product but I will suggest and active donate to campaigns against Mozilla as their board is full of bigots, lets hope the company goes to history to where they belong, to the toiled for not respecting their employees sexuality, in this case Eich believes. It seems the board of directors but more in particular the employees of this company are active discriminations that will burn anyone for their religion, race, sexuality or believe. In this case, if you are not gay you are discriminated. How disgusting to work in a workplace where you have to be gay by force or admit you are pro-gay just to amuse your workers.

I wonder what Mozilla employees do all day, its clearly they think in sex or people sexuality all day instead of actually coding. I´m sure its a very healthy company to work on.

If they imagined gay groups are allot of people, lets see how they like when the rest of the population starts dropping their products. Bookmark this text.

Firefox will start losing market from now on without been able to turn it back. It would not even surprise me if Google was behind this gay groups, because Eich was actually someone that could have done something for Mozilla, lets not forget he invented JavaScript, the thing that powers most web apps today.

Man, what a maroon. A true retrograde moron.

Just exactly the same of what this groups did. I don´t want to be associated with gay groups, just like they don´t wanted for Mozilla to be associated with Eich. So no Firefox or Mozilla for me.

If this groups cannot respect and tolerate others people believes, I have no respect for them either.

Lets hope they get discriminated as much as they can, just exactly the same they did.

"Eich is was both the head of Mozilla, and also saying an entire group of people is subhuman. Calling for his ouster is dramatically different than pitching a fit because I called you out on your idiocy.

Where exactly did he call someone "subhuman"?

This is the nonsense from the left that if you support traditional marriage, you think other people are "subhuman".

Trying to relegate a class of people to second class legal status is treating them as subhuman. Subtext.. learn it.

In any case, I think this is in fact the right thing to do as his views were in fact interfereing with his ability to do his job, given that people actually cared about his views!

The problem is that his views were not interfering with his ability to do his job. In fact his views had no impact on his job.

1. LGBT regulations at the company would not have been affected by his views2. LGBT employees would not have been affected by the company based on his views3. His role as CEO had more to do with business decisions than as a social figurehead.

The fact is that he resigned under the idea that some people didn't like him. It was not that he was bad at his job, not that LGBT individuals would have seen no changes in their employment status at all, nor would LGBT individuals been impacted by Mozilla as a company on their social justice programs.

There has been a long history of boards hiring un-popular CEO's who have brought positive changes to a company's future, brought out of bankruptcy, and so on. This situation flies in the face of that and Mozilla decided it wasn't going to whether this storm despite being in a good place to do so.

All of your points are entirely false. All of the LGBT employees were HUGELY affected by his views, as his donation helped get Prop 8 passed. And his views would have affected the company, as it would hugely affect Mozilla's ability to work with others, and to attract talent.

I truly do not understand. Mozilla is a software company. What does this mans personal beliefs on gay marriage have to do with anything?

You could ask the same thing about Chick-fil-a - though I'm really shocked a lot of people are surprised by what they support, I mean come on... you really didn't see it?

Anyways back to my point, I think it's one thing to express your belief but it's a whole different game when you send thousands of dollars in support of it as well - in this case an anti-gay organization.

You support your viewpoint being able to be supported with political speech but not others. Surprising!

Maybe one day you end up working for a company that doesn't support that viewpoint, you do great work, world changing work, make it to the top, then get pushed out because of it. Even though it had no real effect on your job.

Maybe one day you'll be discriminated against.

Those like you deserve to be "discriminated" against.

You seem to miss the point. I have been discriminated against. It's why I fight.

Quote:

Besides, if you can force me to bake a cake for you, I can force you to attend church with anti-homogamy sermons. At gunpoint.

I pay you for the cake. There is a legal contract, an exhange of goods for services.

It is you who refuse my payment.

As it stands you've just outed yourself as a bigot. Your religion is yours, not mine, whereas a bakery is public, and beholden to public trusts. Your church's sermons are necessarily private.

I truly do not understand. Mozilla is a software company. What does this mans personal beliefs on gay marriage have to do with anything?

You could ask the same thing about Chick-fil-a - though I'm really shocked a lot of people are surprised by what they support, I mean come on... you really didn't see it?

Anyways back to my point, I think it's one thing to express your belief but it's a whole different game when you send thousands of dollars in support of it as well - in this case an anti-gay organization.

You support your viewpoint being able to be supported with political speech but not others. Surprising!

Maybe one day you end up working for a company that doesn't support that viewpoint, you do great work, world changing work, make it to the top, then get pushed out because of it. Even though it had no real effect on your job.

Maybe one day you'll be discriminated against.

Those like you deserve to be "discriminated" against.

You seem to miss the point. I have been discriminated against. It's why I fight.

Everyone gets "discriminated" against at one point or another. Quit your whining and move on with your life.

If it is bad for business that your CEO believes its ok to take away rights from people, yes they should be fired. Unfortunately, he wasn't fired so that argument is moot before you could even get out of the gate.

Its bad for business to relate your browser software with sex. What kind of mentally sane person does that?

Its surely bad for business to have your brand associate with gay groups. Lets see how this works for Mozilla.

It's also pretty bad for your argument to equate sexuality to sex, but here we are. I also think it's a bit damaging for your argument stating that being pro equal rights, or more specifically pro-gay means you are gay.

If people want to believe that Mozilla, the organization that always has declared been pro equality, is now the gay company, and as such need to be boycotted then they should go ahead and do it, as is their right. I will disagree with them, as is my right. See? Free speech undamaged!

The face of tolerance! FYI, I reported you to Ars for your personal attacks and requested they permanently ban you or I'll start a campaign to boycott Ars Technica. Seems to be an acceptable course of action, right?

He's still right about you though.

I took his quote from a response to somebody else. But you can join the list too.

I wonder, if a CEO of a major company in America was a vocal neo-nazi and contributed to causes to re-introduce segregation, ban minorities from getting married, having kids, etc. How many people would be defending his or her job then?

Why do you need to invoke hypotheticals here, and invoke Godwin's law to boot? Most CEOs are conservatives and I'm sure a lot of them supported efforts to restrict gay marriage at one point. As an example of a prominent business-type, Mitt Romney gave $10,000 in support of Prop 8 -- and he didn't even live in California at the time.

[quote=]"Eich is was both the head of Mozilla, and also saying an entire group of people is subhuman. Calling for his ouster is dramatically different than pitching a fit because I called you out on your idiocy.

Where exactly did he call someone "subhuman"?

This is the nonsense from the left that if you support traditional marriage, you think other people are "subhuman".

Yup, that's about the sum of it. If you oppose equal rights for everyone, you are by definition saying some people are lesser than other people. You are, in reality, calling them subhuman.

Marriage isn't a right.[/quote]

It very much is. We have quite a lot of case law around interracial marriage that makes this fundamentally an open-and-shut case from a Constitutional perspective.

Firing people for personal beliefs is a dangerous road to walk for any company. Expecting everyone in your company to toe a political viewpoint creates a toxic polarized atmosphere in the workplace that keeps talented people away (even though I agree that gay marriage is a right)

Problem here though is that, as a CEO, his reputation itself directly affects how people view your company.

He could also have tried to salvage his reputation but he largely remained silent during the s**tstorm after his appointment.

The people calling for his head didn't want a dialog with Eich over gay marriage, they just wanted him gone and blacklisted, which is a highly problematic stance to have if your goal is to win hearts and minds to your cause. This does not play well in more conservative areas with people on the fence about gay marriage.

It's probably for the better, too, at least as far as Mozilla Foundation is concerned. They can't be seen as having someone who has certain viewpoints be the helm of their organization, regardless if he can "separate personal opinions from his work". That just doesn't really work out. Your opinions affect almost everything that you do, but worse, they affect how OTHERS interact with you.

They can't go around with the stigma that Mozilla is the organization that kept a bigot as a CEO. They just can't.

Do you honestly think he would have been forced out if had donated to a group in favor of gay marriage? It just shows that bias is alive and well in Silicon Valley.

You're an idiot, plain and simple, if you think there is ANYTHING similar between the two positions, or that fighting to enshrine rights is anything like fighting to deny a group of people rights. Think before you speak next time.

The message is clear now: Mormons, Muslims, Catholics are not welcome in California based on their views and religions regarding gay rights. They can be hired but cannot use their free speech (money is speech) to express their views.

Victory!

No one is saying that, but if it helps you feel more like a martyr, so be it. ...And before you go nailing yourself to that cross you've built for yourself, understand this: Not every perceived "savage" needs "saving" or a missionary for that matter. Most "savages" survived long before the arrival of organized religion and most will survive after, too.vso, yeah, "Victory" indeed.

If it is bad for business that your CEO believes its ok to take away rights from people, yes they should be fired. Unfortunately, he wasn't fired so that argument is moot before you could even get out of the gate.

Its bad for business to relate your browser software with sex. What kind of mentally sane person does that?

Its surely bad for business to have your brand associate with gay groups. Lets see how this works for Mozilla.

It's also pretty bad for your argument to equate sexuality to sex, but here we are. I also think it's a bit damaging for your argument stating that being pro equal rights, or more specifically pro-gay means you are gay.

If people want to believe that Mozilla, the organization that always has declared been pro equality, is now the gay company, and as such need to be boycotted then they should go ahead and do it, as is their right. I will disagree with them, as is my right. See? Free speech undamaged!

Mozilla is clearly a gay company and this actions show it. It seems half of their employees are gay, otherwise I cannot understand why they would had such pressure over something like this.

Equality does not equal to fire someone because he does not believe in your cause. I would care less if someone is pro-gay or anti-gay, it has nothing to do with the software or the job.

I'm not comfortable with how this turned out. Instead of pushing a man to change his mind, I fear that all this will do is cause people to harden their own opinions...and give Eich a reason, valid or otherwise, to be their poster boy.

Yes, his opinions were reprehensible, no argument whatsoever - but lynch mobs are never the answer. The board members who resigned for their actions took the higher road on this one once they found out what he did; hopefully that can be used as a lesson to be learned.

It's not a lynch mob when people are upset and having a debate. No one physically forced anything, there was an uproar, sure, but he stepped down, not forced out.

A wholly artificial legalism. In any case, it won't stop bullets as people begin to violently reassert their right to freedom of association.

So let's avoid the cute dancing around the point, just come out and say it: Are you advocating for a mass shooting? Who are your targets? When and where do you plan to do this? Be specific, please, so I can notify the appropriate authorities.

I wonder, if a CEO of a major company in America was a vocal neo-nazi and contributed to causes to re-introduce segregation, ban minorities from getting married, having kids, etc. How many people would be defending his or her job then?

To be fair, opposing rights for gays is not at that point yet.

Now, in thirty or forty years, we may well look at those like Eich the way that, today, we look back at segregationists. But this is one form of bigotry that, in large segments of society, is still acceptable.

Yes, you are right. And the fact that bigotry against LGBT people is considered "OK" in much of society is just the thing that needs to be changed. Forcing Eich to step down is step in the right direction.

Back in the early 20th century, it was considered normal and acceptable to be racist and to treat minorities, especially blacks, as unequal. Today, most of us look back and cringe.

Is force really how you want to affect that change? Force didn't work for changing people's attitudes about race. Peoples' minds were changed by peaceful leaders like Martin Luther King. The current force (public shaming, loss of work, etc.) applied against racists has only sent racism underground. The effects of racism are still felt -- including in the workplace.

Mozilla has missed the change to show tolerance by working with someone with an opinion they do not like. So Mr Eich has to go because of the public profile, user base etc.. Implying the user base etc.. are of the same mind and opinion as the Mozilla people?

Which is BS! For most users it is product, not associated with belief(s) but with capability, stability etc.. And when asked, especially outside the USA, probably a majority of users agrees with Mr Eich as they are also not yet so "enlightened" as the (other) Mozilla people.

The thing Mozilla is projecting with this "spat" is they are by the few for the few. And if you don't adhere to their opinions you can go ..... Rather an unique way to present yourself these days.

I'm not comfortable with how this turned out. Instead of pushing a man to change his mind, I fear that all this will do is cause people to harden their own opinions...and give Eich a reason, valid or otherwise, to be their poster boy.

Yes, his opinions were reprehensible, no argument whatsoever - but lynch mobs are never the answer. The board members who resigned for their actions took the higher road on this one once they found out what he did; hopefully that can be used as a lesson to be learned.

It's not a lynch mob when people are upset and having a debate. No one physically forced anything, there was an uproar, sure, but he stepped down, not forced out.

I'm not comfortable with how this turned out. Instead of pushing a man to change his mind, I fear that all this will do is cause people to harden their own opinions...and give Eich a reason, valid or otherwise, to be their poster boy.

Yes, his opinions were reprehensible, no argument whatsoever - but lynch mobs are never the answer. The board members who resigned for their actions took the higher road on this one once they found out what he did; hopefully that can be used as a lesson to be learned.

It's not a lynch mob when people are upset and having a debate. No one physically forced anything, there was an uproar, sure, but he stepped down, not forced out.

Pretty small difference between the two at the CEO level. If you have no credibility then you can't govern and there's no point in remaining as CEO

I have never seen a business person, let alone a chairwoman of a major board, be so artful and in-touch. She owns every problem instead of deflecting and blaming. She tell us what's going to happen immediately and in the short/long term. She is articulate and genuine. Wow.

The face of tolerance! FYI, I reported you to Ars for your personal attacks and requested they permanently ban you or I'll start a campaign to boycott Ars Technica. Seems to be an acceptable course of action, right?

Whatever happened to this 'freedom of speech' thing you keep going on about?

Ah, yes. Nothing says hypocrisy more when those working for the acceptance of an "alternative" lifestyle reject those who do not conform or accept their own.

There's nothing wrong with being intolerant to intolerance.

Ah, so I see. Someone's right to be protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation trumps another person's civil right to be protected from discrimination due to their free expression, religion and assembly. The irony is that the LGBT community suffered so greatly in the past from intolerance. We seem to forget that respect for all civil rights is the highest priority, not just some.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THINGS YOU SAY.

You only have the right to not have the government go after you because of it.

And the view that bigoted opinions should somehow be treated specially, and anyone who speaks out against them is also a bigot is nothing but idiocy, and anyone who espouses that opinion is not worth being listened to.

So I have an honest question, how many people actually called for Eich to resign, and what more did they do than call for his resignation? Were people picketing outside Mozilla's headquarters? We they passing around fliers, or marching around San Francisco? What actually were people doing to voice their desire that Eich should resign?

Firing people for personal beliefs is a dangerous road to walk for any company. Expecting everyone in your company to toe a political viewpoint creates a toxic polarized atmosphere in the workplace that keeps talented people away (even though I agree that gay marriage is a right)

Problem here though is that, as a CEO, his reputation itself directly affects how people view your company.

He could also have tried to salvage his reputation but he largely remained silent during the s**tstorm after his appointment.

The people calling for his head didn't want a dialog with Eich over gay marriage, they just wanted him gone and blacklisted, which is a highly problematic stance to have if your goal is to win hearts and minds to your cause. This does not play well in more conservative areas with people on the fence about gay marriage.

A dialog requires that both sides be willing to discuss. Eich had been signalling that his door was closed on this matter since 2012.

The message is clear now: Mormons, Muslims, Catholics are not welcome in California based on their views and religions regarding gay rights. They can be hired but cannot use their free speech (money is speech) to express their views.

Victory!

No one is saying that, but if it helps you feel more like a martyr, so be it. ...And before you go nailing yourself to that cross you've built for yourself, understand this: Not every perceived "savage" needs "saving" or a missionary for that matter. Most "savages" survived long before the arrival of organized religion and most will survive after, too.vso, yeah, "Victory" indeed.